RAM SWARATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals arise out of judgment of conviction dated the 24th of April, 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1986 by which he convicted the three appellants of two appeals under Sections 148, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned judge heard the appellants on sentence and while he did not pass any sentence upon them under Section 148. of the Indian Penal Code, directed each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act with further direction that the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE first information report was lodged by P.W.9 Gaya Nand Paswan the son of the deceased Indra Devi. It appears from the Fardbeyan (Ext.7) that he had brought his injured father (P.W.3) Tetar Paswan to the police station on a cot and had stated that while he and his father were sitting at his Darwaza, the accused persons were passing through the way situated there. The informant inquired from the accused as to why they had abused Rita Kumari, the daughter of one Firangi Paswan which infuriated them and it is alleged that they came armed with guns and at the orders of appellant Ram Swarath Singh to kill the deceased, the deceased accused Shyam Narayan Singh fired a shot at his mother Indra Devi who fell down and died there. The appellants, namely, Lale Singh and Lalit Singh @ Prabhakar Singh also fired from their respective arms targeting P.W.3 the father of the informant as a result of which P.W.3 was hit, allegedly, on his face, mouth, arms and chest. The informant stated that the incident had been seen by Baleshwar Paswan (not examined), Karo Devi (P.W.7), Ramchandra Paswan (P.W.2), Ram Lakhan Paswan (P.W.6) and others. The investigation was taken up by P.W.11 Paras Nath Rai and he came to the place of occurrence to inspect it and also to hold inquest upon the dead body besides recording the statements of eye witnesses. He sent the dead body for post -mortem examination which was held by P.W.10 Chandeshwar Prasad who found two fire arm wounds on the corpse of the deceased and in his opinion the death had been caused by ante -mortem fire arm injuries caused by a gun shot, fired from a very close range. It appears that after close of investigation, the three appellants along with the fourth accused Shyam Narayan Singh (since dead) were sent up for trial and ultimately the same ended in the impugned judgment.

(3.) OUT of the nine witnesses, Birendra Paswan and Ramchandra Paswan are cited as witnesses in the First Information Report and charge -sheet. P.W.3 Tetar Paswan is the father of the informant and was allegedly injured. Amirak Ravidas was yet another witness coming in support of the prosecution while Girija Devi, Ram Lakhan Paswan with Karo Devi and Rita Devi had come to lend support to the prosecution case. All the witnesses have of course stated in their examination -in -chief that it was at the orders of Ram Swarath Singh that Shyam Narayan Singh had fired a shot to hit Indra Devi and to kill her, but what appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer is that none of the witnesses had made a statement that any other person than the said accused Shyam Narayan Singh had fired any shot. The witnesses were suggested that they had not alleged any overt act against Lale Singh and Lalit Singh @ Prabhakar Singh and had not made any such statement before the Investigating Officer accusing them of firing shots and injuring P.W.3. It appears from the cross -examination of P.W.11 S.I. Paras Nath Rai that none of the witnesses had indeed made any statement slapping any specific allegation of firing shots against the two appellants Lale Singh and Lalit Singh @ Prabhakar Singh. Thus, what appears from consideration of the evidence of witnesses, like, P.Ws. 2 and 3 is that there was no allegation coming initially from them as regards the participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. So far as the evidence of P.W.5 Girija Devi is concerned, she did not even name the two appellants Lale Singh and Lalit Singh @ Prabhakar Singh as amongst the accused persons. Likewise, the evidence of P.W.6 when contrasted and considered with the evidence of the Investigating Officer also renders him not an eye -witness as he had stated before the police that he had not seen the occurrence. P.W.7 Karo Devi was of course cited as a witness in the First Information Report but the Investigating Officer conceded that she had given her statement for the first time to him after 17 or 18 days of the occurrence. We do not have any explanation coming from the prosecution generally and the witnesses Karo Devi and the Investigating Officer particularly as to what was the reason that the lady was shying away from the police in giving her statement. Thus the evidence of Karo Devi does not appear fit to be relied upon. What further appears from the other important aspects of the trial was that it was true that Tetar Paswan (P.W.3) was allegedly injured by the two appellants, but there was no injury report brought on record nor the doctor was produced before the Court to testify that Tetar Paswan was examined by him and some fire arm injuries or any injury was found on his person.